Before the trial, I did no research, I only heard what the mainstream media reported, including the chopped up 911 call NBC played.

When the trial started, I listened to it every day at work, starting out rooting for the prosecution.

As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.

The judicial system worked exactly how it's supposed to. There was enough reasonable doubt to acquit, and that was how it should be. The judicial system convicts based on facts and should prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not convict based on public opinion.

Coco LaFemme:Of course he got off. All you need to do anymore to get away with murder is say you felt "threatened." Doesn't matter what color anyone is in this equation. Two white people, two black people, mixed...doesn't really matter. As long as you the shooter tell the jury that you were afraid for your life, you could justify killing an infant if it came down to it.

That's how farked up this country is right now.

Did you miss all those things they call "evidence" and "facts?" Zimm was getting the shiat kicked out of him and his head being banged against the sidewalk.

The investigating officer knew not to arrest. There were no charges until it got political and then the political types got their a$$es handed to them. Zimmerman will now sue and win a case for malicious prosecution. He should never have been charged.

You mean facts won out on race driven emotional plea /bias from the media and community leaders. and my favorite DUMBARSE line from idiots... B-B-But what if he was a white kid?? well they would have found him not guilty too... You are entitled to your own opinions just not your own facts.

I think it was a clear case of manslaughter due to Zimmerman's negligence. Unfortunately the over reached trying to argue a murder case instead of arguing manslaughter. All they would have had to prove is that George Zimmerman actions caused the unnecessary death of Trayvon Martin and nothing involving motive and such.

Personally I do not think it's right that in Florida you can pretty much provoke someone, shoot them dead if they start kicking your ass, and then get off free claiming self defense.

Anyone who celebrates this should be shunned.Anyone who threatens him should be prosecuted.Anyone who thinks this means "open season on whatever minority I don't like" should be prosecuted.Violent rioters should be prosecuted.

Furthermore, everyone should be depressed. A kid is dead, his family is scarred, and a man's life was thrown into chaos and will likely be haunted by this for the rest of his life.

No one wins no matter what happens. My main concern was that people would celebrate this trial's conclusion, despite what a horrible thing that is to celebrate, and I was proven right.

CrazyCracka420:I think there's a positive lesson we can all learn from this tragedy:

Make sure you're the only one left standing after you start an altercation.

2 out of 3 isn't enough. You gotta finish the job. That's what this verdict says. Like this thread shows, its easy to blame a dead guy for starting a fight---he's not around to testify to the contrary. You could say Trevyon was the local chapter head of NAMBLA and it would be equally as meaningful.

The right wing wanted a revolution, couldn't start it with guns. The left wing wanted a revolution, couldn't push it with paper. The race baiters won't get one by trying to pretend a Hispanic man was white and wrong for defending himself.

People like Jackson and Sharpton want to lead civil rights movement 2.0. They could start by bein actual leaders rather than ambulance chasing to profit from other people's tragedies.

Of course he got off. All you need to do anymore to get away with murder is say you felt "threatened." Doesn't matter what color anyone is in this equation. Two white people, two black people, mixed...doesn't really matter. As long as you the shooter tell the jury that you were afraid for your life, you could justify killing an infant if it came down to it.

Apparently - a jury stacked with mothers was of the same mindset of Trayvon's own mother - based on the content of Trayvon's text messages. He was needing the discipline of a man. Unfortunately, it didn't come from his father. A sad story, but it likely didn't start with meeting Zimmerman. It only ended that way.

2) There is not enough verifiable information available for anyone to honestly conclude how justified the shooting was or was not.

3) As such, anyone falling hard on one side or the other of this issue is motivated by something other than just facts.

3) The jury found there was not enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and therefore acquitted. They even asked for a clarification of their Manslaughter option - it's not like they just wanted to let the guy off the hook for taking the life of a stranger.

4) This does not equate to Zimmerman being innocent.

5) Anyone upset by this verdict is not being reasonable and/or doesn't understand how our justice system works.

6) Anyone celebrating this verdict is not being reasonable, they're gloating.

7) Protesting or rioting over this verdict accomplishes nothing whatsoever.

8) If you riot, you lack self control and have nothing of value to contribute to society.

9) If you loot or perform random acts of damage that hurt the lives or livelihoods of strangers because you're pissed about something entirely unrelated to those people, you are a worthless human being.

10) If you don't like the society and the laws that brought about this killing, this trial, and/or this verdict, it is your responsibility to act in a manner to that might actually affect change instead of just being a dick about it:

- VOTE.

- Become involved in politics, and actively support candidates and laws that might lead to effective change.

- Become informed on the issues that concern you, and speak about them. Out-reason anyone who disagrees with you. Prove them wrong.

- Become active in your community, and try to affect change locally as well.

- Fight for or against gun laws. Fight for or against stand-your-ground laws. Etc.

Mentat:He didn't attack him outright. He confronted Zimmerman in his car and Zimmerman wouldn't identify himself. Trayvon then ran away and waited for Zimmerman to follow him, which he did.

That's precisely why the great danger out of this is not more riots, but a lot more George Zimmermans. A lot of people are going to feel emboldened to act out their prejudicial suspicions as if they were facts. And as long as they kill that person, depending on the laws where they live, they won't have to be as concerned that they'll face any real consequences for doing so. Besides inflaming racial perceptions on all sides, it creates more everyday paranoia, weakening the social fabric along more than one dimension.

Skeptigal:You stupid FLORIDIOTS! Too bad "stand your ground" is only a defense if you're white. A woman who fired warning shots at her husband who was coming at her (she had a protective order against him), was just sentenced to 20 yrs in prison. For attempted manslaughter. In Florida. Guess what color she is?

Guess what? She broke into her SO's house when she had a restraining order against him, confronted him, left his house to get her gun out of her car, returned to continue to argument, and fired a "warning shot" that deflected off the wall and into the ceiling when her children were standing in the same room.

Oh yeah, there was a 911 call where she could be clearly heard saying "I got something for you" and then a shot.

Then she insisted she had a SYG defense when she had a plea deal on the table and rolled the dice on a trial when the charges she was up against had a 20 year mandatory minimum.

I'm very unhappy Martin is dead. I honestly believe Zimmerman caused the altercation to happen by his actions. But I accept the jury's decision that Zimmerman didn't murder him nor committed manslaughter.

But I was once a 17-year-old male, walking in my Florida neighborhood at night after going to the local store. Glad no Zimmernam followed me in their car, carrying a gun.

We can, unless one of us is a racist wannabe Dirty Harry that profiles kids going home from the convenience store as criminals and thugs deserving of a death sentence for the incredible offense of Walking While Black After Dark.

Just letting you guys know that I spoke with Drew and he gave me permission to lock this thread in advance. Nothing good can come out of this discussion thread. The internet is not for anger in discourse. Please do not attempt to use the "Add Comment" button. Doing so will redirect you to a video of a cat cleaning itself. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Kevin72:You are asking 20/20 hindsight speculation. Somehow there was Zimmerman safe in his car and then somehow he is being walloped and mounted like an animal.

Ok, so lets go through the facts as we know them from when he was in his car, to when he was being "walloped and mounted"

- Zimmerman in his car watching Martin (not illegal)- Martin walking around the streets (not illegal)- Zimmerman on phone with 911 (not illegal)- Zimmerman gets out of car (not illegal) *and also not "ignoring the order of the cops not to" as 911 operator =/= cop- Zimmerman follows Martin (not illegal)- Martin goes into a bush to see what Zimmerman does (not illegal)- Martin gets out of bush when Zimmerman approaches (not illegal)*ALETERCATION OCCURS*- Martin is on top of Zimmerman and is assulting him (ILLEGAL)- Zimmerman shoots Martin while being assulted (not illegal)

Now these are the known, proven facts of the case, either documented by scientific study, or by 3rd party accounts (911 operator, witnesses, etc), and not at all dependant on what GZ says happened. You can take they completely out of the equation, so it eliminates the "GZ is lying" angle.

All of these facts are true. Now, in that list, there is only ONE action that is (A) a proven fact and (B) is against the law, and that is Martin is being on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him. Again, that is the only known fact in the timeline that is an illegal act. And that allows for the next event in the timeline to be considered lawfully justified; Zimmerman shooting Martin.

The *only* point of contention; what this entire case hinges on (and really nothing else), is the underlined item, the actual physical altercation.

It therefore comes down to two options:- if Martin was the first party to commit the first physical contact, then Zimmerman is not guilty of any criminal acts thereafter- if Zimmerman was the first party to commit the first physical contact, then Martin is not guilty of any criminal acts thereafter

In determining which option is true, we have to look at what the evidence is given to us. Again, even removing GZs statements, the only evidence we have is this: Zimmerman had injuries that was a restult of a physical altercation, and Martin did not.

And thats it. Thats is all there is. Given just these known facts, and the sole desision that had to be made; based on that, while we can't call Zimmerman "Innocent" we can't call him "Guilty", and that is the outcome we had today in the court.

Incidentally, no matter your feelings on Zimmerman, you should at least be somewhat happy about the outcome of the trial. Because it *SHOULD* be hard as fark to convict someone for something like murder; if there's enough reasonable doubt (whether it's due to the defendant actually being innocent, a lack of evidence or just a shiatty prosecutor), an acquittal means the system works.

iq_in_binary:Carth: iq_in_binary: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

Actively pursuing somebody starts a fight, sorry.

If someone is trying to get the fark away from you and you won't let them? You're instigating a fight.

Following someone isn't illegal. Punching someone for following you is. Martin had no legal obligation to flee from Zimmerman (but he was only 100 yards from home and had 3 minutes to get there) but he did have a legal obligation not to beat Zimmerman for following him

Wrong.

Legal investigator. MY JOB was following people. You NEVER continuously trail somebody from less than 20-30 yards away. Because any closer is considered menacing. Besides that, if you had half a brain, you wouldn't be trailing somebody in a fashion that would alert them to the fact that you're tailing. For exactly the same reason, it can be construed as intimidating or threatening. Menacing, Intimidation, Stalking, there are all kinds of criminal charges that can and will be levied against you for following people around, and plenty of investigators have been tried with them despite the perfectly legitimate reasons they have to be investigating people.

Constantly following somebody around in a manner that they are aware of and at close proximity IS illegal behavior, in many places majorly so.

Like I said, Zimmerman started the fight.

It isn't illegal in FL. Did you actually watch the trial? That was one of the main things they talked about during jury instruction and the state couldn't come up with any FL state law that said you couldn't follow anyone. Stalking, defined in Fl as repeated following, is illegal. Following someone to report their movements to 911 wasn't illegal according to the case.

Carth:iq_in_binary: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

Actively pursuing somebody starts a fight, sorry.

If someone is trying to get the fark away from you and you won't let them? You're instigating a fight.

Following someone isn't illegal. Punching someone for following you is. Martin had no legal obligation to flee from Zimmerman (but he was only 100 yards from home and had 3 minutes to get there) but he did have a legal obligation not to beat Zimmerman for following him

Wrong.

Legal investigator. MY JOB was following people. You NEVER continuously trail somebody from less than 20-30 yards away. Because any closer is considered menacing. Besides that, if you had half a brain, you wouldn't be trailing somebody in a fashion that would alert them to the fact that you're tailing. For exactly the same reason, it can be construed as intimidating or threatening. Menacing, Intimidation, Stalking, there are all kinds of criminal charges that can and will be levied against you for following people around, and plenty of investigators have been tried with them despite the perfectly legitimate reasons they have to be investigating people.

Constantly following somebody around in a manner that they are aware of and at close proximity IS illegal behavior, in many places majorly so.

iq_in_binary:Penman: Pincy: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

So we have video of how this whole thing went down?

A 911 call and the injuries to Zimmerman.

Yes, a 911 call where Zimmerman admitted to pursuing Martin. Despite being told not to.

Active pursuit is threatening behavior. That's instigating a fight. Like I said, he was losing a fight he started, and like a little biatch pulled the gun because he was a sore loser.

You can turn around and violently attack someone because they're walking down the same street as you? "Yes Officer, I thought he was pursuing me, I just didn't like the way he looked, so I beat the shiat out of him"In fact it seems like Trayvon might be the racist one, assuming that the Mexican guy is out to get him.

RockSteadyUSMC:The judicial system worked exactly how it's supposed to. There was enough reasonable doubt to acquit, and that was how it should be. The judicial system convicts based on facts and should prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not convict based on public opinion.

/USMC MP//Yes I have a clue

Exactly what I just said to my wife. He's probably guilty but there is enough doubt. This is how the judicial system is supposed to work. Error on the side of letting guilty people go free rather than incarcerating the innocent.

shastacola:Mid_mo_mad_man: Zimmerman was found not guilty. If one followed the court everyday this was an easy verdict to reach. It's clear Martin was not scared of Zimmerman but he was angry. Martin was a thug with a violent past. He was on marijuana and didn't have a clear rational head. Zimmerman had a legal right to follow Martin. He had the right to call 911. No law was broken till Martin jumped George. Once that happened he was in his rights to shot Martin. No tears should be shed for Martin.

Ever notice how many Zimmerman fans feel a need to paint Martin as a thug? What was any more "thuggish" about him than most teenagers? He got suspended from school for graffiti,truancy and pot. Please explain how this makes him a "violent thug".

Well, the actual violence he participated in, referring to your last sentence. But I am really starting to hate the word thug. It's starting to become the "N-word" when you cant say the actual phrase "N-word". How far down the rabbit hole will these hyphenated code words delve?

There's no evidence whatsoever that this tragedy was little more than a misunderstanding between two men. Zimmerman was doing his civic duty by keeping eyes on someone he thought might be a burglar. It turns out, Martin wasn't a burglar, he was just your average non-criminal millenial. Trayvon likely thought he was being threatened, a reasonable assumption. Unfortunately it seems clear that Trayvon thought that initiating a physically forceful confrontation was a safe idea. This is NEVER a good idea in a country with a 2nd amendment. Be respectful of your fellow citizen and don't initiate force and you'll likely never get shot. Trayvon didn't think, he started a fight with someone who he reasonably though threatened him, and Zimmerman defended himself legally when he feared he would no longer be able to respond.

That's it, anything else is race-baiting nonsense. This is little more than a misunderstanding between too men that went too far. If there were other people nearby who would have had the good sense to intervene, it would have never gotten this far. If Trayvon runs home instead of finding Zimmerman, nothing happens. If Zimmerman watched from his car, nothing happens. No moral crime save the initiation of force occurred in this situation. We will never know who started it, but all testimony and evidence points to Trayvon starting the fight. Regardless, there's nothing racist about this tragedy, it's just what happens when fights go too far. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him, it's entirely possible he would end up like Brian Stow.

...most of the trigger-happy Republicans out there would have approached this case from a completely different side. Something like "It should be legal for teenagers to carry concealed firearms so they can defend themselves from black men who stalk them and kill them!"

Penman:iq_in_binary: Penman: Pincy: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

So we have video of how this whole thing went down?

A 911 call and the injuries to Zimmerman.

Yes, a 911 call where Zimmerman admitted to pursuing Martin. Despite being told not to.

Active pursuit is threatening behavior. That's instigating a fight. Like I said, he was losing a fight he started, and like a little biatch pulled the gun because he was a sore loser.

You can turn around and violently attack someone because they're walking down the same street as you? "Yes Officer, I thought he was pursuing me, I just didn't like the way he looked, so I beat the shiat out of him"In fact it seems like Trayvon might be the racist one, assuming that the Mexican guy is out to get him.

Ok, I'm heavy on the self defense opinion myself, I think we may have started off on the wrong foot.

Let me explain, I have insight into the legal system that you do not have. I was a legal investigator. A good one, I charged $150/hr for static surveillance and $225/hr plus the rates of other investigators helping me for dynamic surveillance. That's right, my job was following people.

Let's get something straight, following people in a menacing manner IS against the law. For us? Unless we we're in confined quarters like a bar or strip club or restaurant, the general rule is stay the fark outside of a 20-30 yard bubble. Why? Because any closer can be considered menacing. Investigators have been charged with intimidation, stalking, disorderly behavior, you name it for trailing people. Because guess what, constantly following people around IS generally considered in the court of law to be threatening behavior.

As a "legal professional" (don't kid yourself, I was hired muscle for lawyers, and because of who I worked for it was TECHNICALLY legal, though morally wrong) I have both a wide breadth when it comes to defending myself but also a pretty close look at how the criminal element and how unfavorably it treats those not working for the system. I'm also fairly liberal now, so I try and confine my use of force worthy situations to as small a list of justifiable situations as possible. Basically, the mantra is, GET THE fark AWAY. Why? Showing that you did the best you could to avoid the situation in the first place goes a long way in criminal cases towards showing necessity of your actions. Awareness, Detection, Evasion. Be aware, detect the threat, and do your best to get the fark away from it. Failing that, preemptive offense. I've worked for many a lawyer, one of whom has personally taken a police chief in front of the SCOTUS and biatch slapped him up one side the court and down the other over a rejected CCW application. He told me to write a book on self defense after discussing this subject at length, and offered to write the forward.

Zimmerman pursued. In a sane world, that would preempt a self defense claim. He wasn't a cop, he was armed against Neighborhood Watch rules, etc.. That he's walking around free when it very well could have been me that he tried to chase that night because I was doing an asset check is disturbing. Why? Because the best way to diffuse a violent situation is to get away from it. That there is a legal climate in any state of our union that justifies someone pursuing (which like I said, for me, IS criminal behavior if they spot me and I'm closer than 20-30 yards) thus starting a fight (I kind of have to think that way because my mere presence is very detrimental to them, it means their life is about to take a turn for the worse if I live to turn in that affidavit, motive AND opportunity considering they're in visible range of me), and shooting someone when they end up losing the fight(which is again likely with me, I took hand to hand and defensive pistol training very seriously), is a VERY BAD THING.

In short, I am (or was, now that I'm not on the job anymore and relocated to a city where I didn't have a bunch of people rather pissed at me) the epitome of the reason to be paranoid and walk around armed, and even I find some very big and glaring issues with this ruling. Whether or not you chose to address them is up to you. But as someone who had big reason to be concerned over this who is quite invested in legal self defense, quit it with your pretentious shiat.

I don't think he's necessarily expressing a legal opinion. Zimmerman, regardless of the trial verdict, took actions that ultimately resulted in him killing a teenager. Sounds like the teenager made plenty of bad decisions too, but nonetheless, no one should have died that night.

Great now Zimmerman can sue ABC for starting this circus! ABC who doctored the police video to cover his injuries and stated Zimmerman lied when he said he was attacked causing America to get in a up-roar..... Zimmerman should also sue the media outlet who dubbed the 911 tape to make it sound like he was racist and played it on the news...These two things America was not told was fake for months after the fact!

The law is the law despite or even in spite of what Judge Dredd proclaimed. From my little armchair I concluded based on the evidence that Zimmerman would have been guilty of at least something. In Florida, apparently not.

My opinion means nothing there. My opinion means less than nothing here! This is the law we are discussing, and the law is at worst lawful evil. The jury decided.

I hope that Zimmerman will find a quiet life. I suspect that will not be true. I suspect vigilantes will make his life hell. At this point, I'm hating the vigilantes. Give him the respect the jury gave him. Leave him alone.

Yeah, it'd be a damn shame if someone took the law into their own hands and shot someone they believed to be a criminal.

DicksWii:Since George Zimmerman is not guilty of the gun death of Trayvon Martin, then that just proves my point --- People don't kill people, GUNS kill people. Can we get started on that National Gun Confiscation thing now?

Penman:iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

Not at all. The jury makes no determination on what went on that night. They only found that the prosecution did not meet the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Say you believe what prosecution argued and disbelieve everything the defense stated and Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman followed Martin, there was a confrontation of some kind, Zimmerman suffered superficial injuries and shot Martin. There simply isn't enough there to prove 2nd degree murder or even Manslaughter without having to make too many inferences. The jury followed the instructions and found him not guilty. That doesn't mean Zimmerman is innocent, it just means there wasn't enough proof he was guilty. The prosecution didn't have a lot to work with and probably did a few things they wish they had done differently now. However even with the best presentation possible of the facts they had available, it was a tough case.

Put me in team French toast. Some scrambled eggs with a little bit of milk and cinnamon to drench some stale bread before a quick trip through a non-stick pan to heat it up. Top it with a little butter and some honey and I am set.

iq_in_binary:Penman: Pincy: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

So we have video of how this whole thing went down?

A 911 call and the injuries to Zimmerman.

Yes, a 911 call where Zimmerman admitted to pursuing Martin. Despite being told not to.

Active pursuit is threatening behavior. That's instigating a fight.

You keep saying that but we just had a trial about it and a jury determined that isn't the case. Following someone isn't illegal.

iq_in_binary:Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

Actively pursuing somebody starts a fight, sorry.

If someone is trying to get the fark away from you and you won't let them? You're instigating a fight.

Following someone isn't illegal. Punching someone for following you is. Martin had no legal obligation to flee from Zimmerman (but he was only 100 yards from home and had 3 minutes to get there) but he did have a legal obligation not to beat Zimmerman for following him

johnnyrocket:Simple question: if you claim self defense, you need scant proof that it was self defense?

The burden of proof for a self-defense claim doesn't go as high as reasonable doubt, but you do have to demonstrate it pretty strongly. Essentially you have to provide reasonable doubt that what you did was a crime, while admitting that you did it.

Very scary verdict, seems like open season for shooting people for no reason at all. And getting away with it.

You stupid FLORIDIOTS! Too bad "stand your ground" is only a defense if you're white. A woman who fired warning shots at her husband who was coming at her (she had a protective order against him), was just sentenced to 20 yrs in prison. For attempted manslaughter. In Florida. Guess what color she is?

"You have a little black boy who was killed," said Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Martin's parents. "It's going to be reported in history books ,and 50 years from now, our children will talk about Trayvon Martin's case like we talk about Emmett Till."

Jose628:Michael Moore Verified account@MMFlintTrayvon was the 1 who's life was being threatened--by a guy w/ a gun chasing after him! Trayvon had the RIGHT 2 do ANYTHING 2 defend himselfhttps://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/356243570098835459

Really? He *knew* Z had a gun?

So, tell me why he attacked a guy who was armed with a gun...cause that's all kinds of stupid no matter who's the "victim".

/the amount of people who think Z and T were mind reading each other is astounding.

Not a good outcome: this is not a thing to celebrate. No heroics were done here. This is not a thing to be honored.Not a bad outcome: a man who did what he had to do to survive was not punished, when he easily could have been.Not justice: there was no justice to be had. But not injustice either, which could have occurred.

Now healing can begin, if we will let it. It will be a long process, and a painful one. But at least we have not made the wounds worse.

It's times like these that I thank god a live in an area surrounded by rednecks. I'm pissed and I'm white. If a black guy can't walk around without being harassed nobody should be able to. Until this changes black people will be angry, and I understand.

Irresistably stupid force collided with immovably stupid object. What is left is what could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I thought manslaughter would have been correct, but I wasn't on the jury. You can't pack heat then go around in a situation that may lead to a confrontation. In addition, you can't jump a dude planning to beat his ass and assume you will come out all right either.

Thus, Florida retains its tag. As someone once said here, Florida is to stupid what Japan is to fetish.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

At the very least, can we retire this incorrect statement of fact before this thread ends. The 911 dispatcher testified in court that he absolutely could not, did not and would not order George Zimmerman to do anything. He further stated that he is instructed not to order anyone on the other end of the line to do anything because that would potentially make the municipal government liable if the order caused the person to be harmed. He stated that he is allowed to make suggestions only; which is what he did in this instance.

HE SAID THIS IN COURT. NOBODY HAS CONTRADICTED THIS FACT. PLEASE STOP WRONGLY ASSERTING THE OPPOSITE.

Anyone who isn't not-guilty in this case is devoid of all logic. It actually requires deliberate ignorance and making up facts and pure speculation to make this anything other than self defense. It drives me mad that the world is still this farked up.

Zimmerman followed Martin because he fit the profile of suspects who had recently committed crimes in that area. Yes, those suspects were black. Trayvon Martin was skulking through the neighborhood. Yes, he was just trying to get home. There was no way for Zimmerman or anyone else to know that. Zimmerman then called the non-emergency line. The operator (not a police officer) said, about following Trayvon "we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman said "ok." In the 4 minutes Martin could have chosen to just go home like he intended, he chose to confront Zimmerman with violent force. This force included pinning Zimmerman to the ground, punching Zimmerman in the face, and slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete. Zimmerman, fearing for his life, fired his gun once and ended his assailant's life.

These are the facts of the case as presented in the trial. There are no other facts. Everyone is just making a bunch of shiat up and it's stupid and disgusting. You never have the right to assault someone who is not actively trying to hurt you and all of your bleeding heart emotion doesn't change the fact that it was a barbaric act on the part of Trayvon Martin that caused Zimmerman to fear for his life, which resulted in Martin's death. Skin color has nothing to do with it.

Martin called Zimmerman a "creepy cracker" and turned back to attack Martin. What if a white man had done the same thing? What if a guy that looked like a skinhead told someone on the phone, same scenario, that "a weird n*gg*r" was following him, and proceeded to turn around and start beating the shiat out of someone over it. There's no difference. The skin colors have no relevance. The ages have no relevance. There are just the facts and if you can't get over that, I pray you never serve on a jury.

for all you ignorant farkers out there, he's several photos of the KelTec PF-11 with the slide locked back:

thats how this gun works. if you think you or any human being can bend the barrel of ANY gun, especially a 9mm which is built to withstand 60,000 PSI, then i have a bridge and some swampland for sale that i think you'd like to buy.

Mentalpatient87:Oh, I've recently purchased a bottle to keep pancake batter in. Just gotta mix up a big batch and funnel it in there, keep it in the fridge. Great for quick, easy pancakes for the terminally lazy like myself. I recommend it. I'm sure a used syrup bottle would work fine.

I'm now convinced half the country was watching a different trial than I was.

911 Operator told him "Ok, we don't need you to do that." And Zimmerman followed the kid anyways. Zimmerman had a loaded gun on him for neighborhood watch duty, who the f*ck does that. He saw a black kid running home in the rain with his hood on and assumed he had robbed a nearby 7-11, so he says "They always get away, f*cking punks."

(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-f or -firing-warning-shots/

wedun:steamingpile: RockSteadyUSMC: The judicial system worked exactly how it's supposed to. There was enough reasonable doubt to acquit, and that was how it should be. The judicial system convicts based on facts and should prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not convict based on public opinion.

/USMC MP//Yes I have a clue

Then you are obviously a racist sir!

eh he had a "grill" and THC in his system at the time he was killed

Also he had a "criminal history"

sounds like enough reasonable doubt for me.

Makes me worry about my roommate, who uses pot medicinally for severe migraines but sometimes for recreation too. And has used other drugs as well, and has even helped procure pot for friends (ooh low level dealer, working to establish a customer base). And she has a "criminal history" (protest arrest, and iirc an MIP), until recently lived in Detroit, and is a young adult (22). And has some a few dumbass regrettable pictures on Facebook. Good to know all of that is justification to assume the worst about her, eh? I mean, she is a woman (well duh), and not black, and accomplished, but ignoring all that - about the same eh?

Again: reasonable doubt, the jury was correct. But no, making out Trayvon to be a punk thug kid does NOT have bearing NOR should it justify ANYTHING.

well, that's not rational then. Sure, he may be morally guilty of something but I don't think he is morally guilty of intentional murder. I have no ...

I don't know how old you are, but when 4 LAPD officers were acquitted of beating the crap out of Rodney King and people rioted, the 4 officers were charged again in federal court. IIRC, two of them were found guilty. It would not have happened if not for riots. Even if it doesn't do any good, the possibility that it might do some good--a feeling of empowerment at the very least--is more than they're likely to get through traditional channels. African-Americans are what? 15% of the population? They have very little political (economic) power and it's decreasing every day.

Gyrfalcon:That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

The problem is, that it totally dismisses whether or not Martin felt he was in danger to start with.

It can also be irrelevant, if Martin felt threatened, then he was well within his rights to as the law puts it stand his ground. Of course since he's dead, we can't find out if he did indeed felt threatened.

Second of all, would you prefer the alternative? You and the "burn Zimmerman" crew seem to want a justice system where someone can have their life ruined given circumstantial evidence with plenty of doubt to go around.

Cataholic:PsiChick: Pichu0102: Anyone who celebrates this should be shunned.Anyone who threatens him should be prosecuted.Anyone who thinks this means "open season on whatever minority I don't like" should be prosecuted.Violent rioters should be prosecuted.

Furthermore, everyone should be depressed. A kid is dead, his family is scarred, and a man's life was thrown into chaos and will likely be haunted by this for the rest of his life.

No one wins no matter what happens. My main concern was that people would celebrate this trial's conclusion, despite what a horrible thing that is to celebrate, and I was proven right.

Uh...he brought that one on himself...

/If you're Random Dumbfark, sure, you might not know that following a teen boy in the middle of the night is a stupid idea. If you're 'Captain of the Neighborhood Watch' with a 911 dispatcher telling you to stay the fark put...you have no goddamn excuse for the consequences, especially since you are the adult in the situation.

I know. He should have just laid back and taken the beating he deserved. What did he think was gonna happen wearin that skirt?

You want to know the difference between Zimmerman and a rape victim? Zimmerman chose to get out of his car and actively pursue Trayvon while armed*. Rape victims don't usually chase rapists around with guns.

/*And, as you would know if you knew the first damn thing about gun safety, while you are carrying a loaded weapon you DO NOT TAKE ACTION THAT MIGHT PROVOKE A FIGHT.//Godfarkingdamn, how do people miss the most basic gun-safety rules?

As a self-hating white person with a pigeon chest and kazoo voice, I was hoping that George Zimmerman would be found guilty of murder for daring to resist a black man who was doing nothing wrong except for pounding Zimmerman's head against a concrete sidewalk and bloodying his nose in an attempt to exact some measure of racial justice. I am outraged that it is now considered acceptable for lighter-skinned people to act in self-defence against darker-skinned people who are trying to kill them, and I am more outraged still that Zimmerman has been spared prison and the prolonged sexual torture and eventual murder that the verdict would have entailed. Obviously what has happened here proves that the USA is still a dystopian racist theocracy, and by way of protest I am going to obstinately remain in the basement of my house in my predominantly-white, safe, suburban neighbourhood until justice is done, while furiously hammering away at the keyboard.

All this Pancake, Waffle debate with French Toast trying to weigh in and no love for Crepes!?!?!Dad used to make then all the time..Butter, fruit, jam..he could not make them fast enough for me and my brothers..Yum..Will make some very soon. Screw your Pancakes and Waffles!

So, when all this is said and done, what really changes? Nothing. Even if Zimmerman had been found guilty, what was really gained? Nothing. In no way do I mean to belittle or detract from the sad loss of Trayvon's life, but can we be brutally honest for a moment?

We all know that people of all kinds commit crimes; that's beside the point here.We all know that when we talk about "black crime", we're not talking about the majority of black Americans.We all know that racism, police brutality, and corrupt politicians are continuing problems. But they are not the biggest problems at hand.If you dismiss my observations simply on the basis that I'm white (a creepy-ass cracker?), you've got no standing at all calling me a racist or whatever; if fact it only reflects on you. If I'm wrong, just explain why you think so.All that being said . . .

Every day in the inner cities and ghettos all over America, young black men are killing other young black men at a terrifying rate. Good people within the neighborhood feel like hostages while gang bangers and thugs roam freely outside. Drugs, crime, and unemployment are ubiquitous. Song after song by black artists glorify disrespecting women, gluttonous materialism, and disregard for others to the point of violence. The prison industry profits while its dungeons teem with young blacks more than any other group. So where are the nationwide protests? Where is the media outrage? Why this double standard that seems to say - true or not - that the only black life worth being upset about is one taken by a non-black? I ask because this is the very thing that is the problem: The death of Trayvon Martin, though tragic, is but a drop in an ocean in the larger issues concerning race and crime in black America, yet few are addressing these issues with anywhere near the passion that has been generated over this single case. So what's up? What's going on here?

Over seventy people were shot over the 4th of July weekend this year in Chicago alone, over thirty of whom died. Almost all were black, several of whom were innocent children and toddlers. Has anyone shown the same outrage and compassion for them too? Are all these deaths less worthy of attention and outrage because both the victim and the perp are black? And if not, then why the silence?

In a better world, the existing culture of victim-hood and despair would be thrown aside as the self defeating lie that it is and replaced with a Renaissance of black American culture. The existing black leadership that thrives on the anger and the sense of helplessness of the people it claims to represent would be cast away and replaced with strong leaders that would focus on the positive and help their communities strive to achieve their full potential. Begin to rally together not to protest others, but instead to unite as a community, and you have overcome the biggest problem of all.

And Casey Anthony. I knew as soon as the incompetent prosecutor allowed the jury to be made up of 6 white women that this wannabe cop asshat would get off. I hope the blacks burn Florida to the ground.

Based on the testimony of the person Trayvon was on the phone with prior to the fight.

not surprising that people who didn't know the facts of the case would find this ruling controversial.the media should have done a better job presenting the facts, not the hype, emotions and flat out deceptions.

Do black people really say "cracka" still? I thought that was a dated term to use.

his girlfriend testified that he said that on the phone to her

I have words for people that stalk me at night in the dark too while I'm on the sidewalk. They are not complimentary.

if they're racist then guess what? You're a racist.

That's pretty interesting considering I'm a Latino academic who works in African-American Studies. I'll bet your understanding of the historical, social, economic, political and structural components of racism is dazzling to behold. Protip: Language informs racialization and vice versa, but neither of them are equivalent to the other.

Mighty Taternuts:MatrixOutsider: Mighty Taternuts: Raiden333: As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.

He chased a kid that did nothing wrong after the 911 operator told him not to, how is that not ill-will?

The operator does not have the authority to issue a police command.

That isn't what I asked. Following an innocent person with the intent of stopping them because you feel they may have done something wrong is ill-will.

Utter Genius:Now sue NBC and get your ruined life back, George Zimmerman.

No, no, no. the next step will be Obama instructing the "Justice" Department to go after him on Federal Charges. Obama will want as much race hatred as possible to increase black turnout in 2014. I bet they even time the arrest to be just about 2 months before the election.

All that twaddle about Uniting rather than dividing the country is over. And you were a fool if you ever believed it.

iq_in_binary:Carth: iq_in_binary: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

Actively pursuing somebody starts a fight, sorry.

If someone is trying to get the fark away from you and you won't let them? You're instigating a fight.

Following someone isn't illegal. Punching someone for following you is. Martin had no legal obligation to flee from Zimmerman (but he was only 100 yards from home and had 3 minutes to get there) but he did have a legal obligation not to beat Zimmerman for following him

Wrong.

Legal investigator. MY JOB was following people. You NEVER continuously trail somebody from less than 20-30 yards away. Because any closer is considered menacing. Besides that, if you had half a brain, you wouldn't be trailing somebody in a fashion that would alert them to the fact that you're tailing. For exactly the same reason, it can be construed as intimidating or threatening. Menacing, Intimidation, Stalking, there are all kinds of criminal charges that can and will be levied against you for following people around, and plenty of investigators have been tried with them despite the perfectly legitimate reasons they have to be investigating people.

Constantly following somebody around in a manner that they are aware of and at close proximity IS illegal behavior, in many places majorly so.

Penman:Pincy: Penman: iq_in_binary: Because the asshole who thinks a gun in his pocket makes him a cop that decided you looked suspicious won't go to jail for shooting you after starting a fight with you and losing.

Every Trayvon cheerleader gets this wrong. Trayvon Martin started the fight.

So we have video of how this whole thing went down?

A 911 call and the injuries to Zimmerman.

I'm impressed that you have consistently not been right in your accounting of events

Mighty Taternuts:MatrixOutsider: Mighty Taternuts: Raiden333: As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.

He chased a kid that did nothing wrong after the 911 operator told him not to, how is that not ill-will?

The operator does not have the authority to issue a police command.

That isn't what I asked. Following an innocent person with the intent of stopping them because you feel they may have done something wrong is ill-will.

There is no proof that is what happened. He started following Martin when the dispatcher asked "which way is he running" and started returning to his car when the dispatcher said they didn't need him to follow Martin. The state didn't have any evidence that Zimmerman intended to confront martin.

Rwa2play:Coco LaFemme: Of course he got off. All you need to do anymore to get away with murder is say you felt "threatened." Doesn't matter what color anyone is in this equation. Two white people, two black people, mixed...doesn't really matter. As long as you the shooter tell the jury that you were afraid for your life, you could justify killing an infant if it came down to it.

That's how farked up this country is right now.

It's gonna be fun when the tables are turned: Older black man shoots white meth head trying to rob him but was fleeing when shot. Wonder if some on right will be so elated with "Stand Your Ground".

AirForceVet:I'm very unhappy Martin is dead. I honestly believe Zimmerman caused the altercation to happen by his actions. But I accept the jury's decision that Zimmerman didn't murder him nor committed manslaughter.

But I was once a 17-year-old male, walking in my Florida neighborhood at night after going to the local store. Glad no Zimmernam followed me in their car, carrying a gun.

Before the trial, I did no research, I only heard what the mainstream media reported, including the chopped up 911 call NBC played.

When the trial started, I listened to it every day at work, starting out rooting for the prosecution.

As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.

Didn't they find Zimmerman liable in the wrongful death suit. They at least recognized he was negligent in his actions.

doccm9:heavymetal: I think it was a clear case of manslaughter due to Zimmerman's negligence. Unfortunately the over reached trying to argue a murder case instead of arguing manslaughter. All they would have had to prove is that George Zimmerman actions caused the unnecessary death of Trayvon Martin and nothing involving motive and such.

Personally I do not think it's right that in Florida you can pretty much provoke someone, shoot them dead if they start kicking your ass, and then get off free claiming self defense.

Free at last, free at last, hallelujah he's free at last. Now let's go linch the DA and prosecutor for misconduct and make sure they get some serious jail time and get millions for the heroic IT guy who exposed their crimes against justice.

Coco LaFemme:Of course he got off. All you need to do anymore to get away with murder is say you felt "threatened." Doesn't matter what color anyone is in this equation. Two white people, two black people, mixed...doesn't really matter. As long as you the shooter tell the jury that you were afraid for your life, you could justify killing an infant if it came down to it.

That's how farked up this country is right now.

It's gonna be fun when the tables are turned: Older black man shoots white meth head trying to rob him but was fleeing when shot. Wonder if some on right will be so elated with "Stand Your Ground".

Mighty Taternuts:Raiden333: As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.

He chased a kid that did nothing wrong after the 911 operator told him not to, how is that not ill-will?

Raiden333:As the case went on, I started to realize that the case had been mischaracterized in the media and that there was in fact Reasonable Doubt. I saw that the prosecution was unable to establish a consistent narrative of what happened, and relied only on attacking Zimmerman's character and evoking emotion for Martin. I am sad that Martin is dead, it should not have happened. Both men made stupid mistakes that night. I don't know Zimmerman well enough to make a call on if he truly had ill-will in his heart. But I am happy a not guilty verdict was reached, because it means that evidence and the process of law have overridden appeals to emotion.

He chased a kid that did nothing wrong after the 911 operator told him not to, how is that not ill-will?

steamingpile:RockSteadyUSMC: The judicial system worked exactly how it's supposed to. There was enough reasonable doubt to acquit, and that was how it should be. The judicial system convicts based on facts and should prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not convict based on public opinion.

I swear to god if somebody starts knocking at my door for the obviously satirical post, which I am pointing out right now through this disclaimer, i will kill you. Which that last statement, should not be taken literally either, I meant that as a euphemism, for inviting you in for tea and crumpets, while we have a long discussion about our lord and savior.

honestly, entire thread ruined by pancake bullshiat, want to read, don't want to read so much bullshiat, ill blame the mods since they picked this much shiattier version of the thread with built in off topic.

thornhill:In the heat of the moment when an authority figure says, "we don't need you to do that," that's going to be interpreted as, "don't do it," not, "this person is only phrasing it this way because of liability reason."

I want to state unequivocally that I am pleased with this verdict. I have stated from the start the prosecution did not have a case and would race bait and appeal to emotion. Fortunately, the jury did what the law required.

Now we need to see about bringing up misconduct charges on the prosecutors and judge.

TheDumbBlonde:mr lawson: So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.

Dude, it's always a white guy;s fault.

What's really funny about comments like this is how it reveals your own racism and ignorance. To you, Zimmerman is "Hispanic" because he's not as pale as a Northern-European, but most light-skinned Hispanics with clearly non-native names don't think of themselves as Hispanic; they think of themselves as White. Racism is actually a huge problem in central and South America as the "Spanish" and "Portuguese" (and in Mexico at least they still call themselves that) behave in exactly the same way towards the "mestizos" and "indios" as white racists do towards everyone else in the US.

Florida won't burn to the ground because, contrary to what conservatives would have you believe, neither blacks nor liberals are irrational, emotion-crazed barbarians who instantly react to things they dislike with violence. Remember: it was white conservatives who started a civil war in the US over not having a president that agreed with them; white conservatives that have been behind all but three of the notable political assassinations in US history; white conservatives who burn down and blow up women's health clinics and shoot to death the doctors and nurses who work at them; white conservatives who lynch non-white and non-christian men for interacting with white women or for the crime of insisting they have basic human dignity. And in this case, it was a white-identifying Latino, one who bought into all the paranoid horseshiat the conservative movement spews about race, youth, and crime, who shot a kid to death in the street at night out of fear, after confronting him out of prejudice for the offense of being black in his own damn neighborhood.

Remember that white and white-identifying US conservatives are dangerous. They are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and injuries in the US every year. Remember that they are hysterical and unpredictable, and will deploy violence without reason. Make no sudden movements around them and, if you are a minority of any kind, interact with them as little as possible. If you are not a white male, you are not safe around them; if you must interact with them, please seek out a friendly white male to do it for you. In their bottomless, pants-shiatting fear of everyone who isn't Northern-European and be-penised, they will shoot you at the drop of a hat, and never be punished for it. Just ask Yoshihiro Hattori.

thornhill:nekom: shastacola:Speculation about the dead kid who can't tell his side of the story because he's dead-totally legit.Speculation that Zimmerman tailored his story to look like self defense- not based on fact. Right.

I'll admit that the beginning of the physical altercation isn't known 100%, but do you REALLY think Martin DIDN'T attack him? It is the most likely scenario, given what facts we do have. Proven? No. But likely.

Even if he did attack him, that still doesn't mean Zimmerman was so fearful that he would die that he felt his only option was to kill Martin.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman followed Martin against the orders of the police -- how fearful could he have really have been, especially considering that he had a gun?

rdu_voyager:Weaver95: LegacyDL: Lesson learned: listen to authority and don't be the aggressor.

I think the lesson here is: don't be black.

Actually, I think the lesson is: if you defend yourself against a football playing, physically fit, aggressive 17-year-old who happens to be black, the state of Florida will try to railroad your ass no matter how little evidence of murder or manslaughter there is.

Maybe the lesson is this: if the person you are pummeling is screaming for help like a little girl, you should probably stop or he might think the only choice hehas is to pull out his gun and shoot you.

Heron:UNC_Samurai: This is about the prosecution being unable to put together a compelling case.

You don't go to jail just for being proven a racist asshole.

I think it's more the jury not understanding their instruction. 2nd degree murder was a stretch, but an armed person starting an altercation which ends in the death of another is classic manslaughter. That they didn't convict on that charge shows they either didn't understand the conditions for that verdict, or chose not to apply them.

Just because you are armed does not mean you cannot ask someone "What are you doing here". Zimmerman had every right to do what he did. Martin initiated the attack. This is a classic case of self defense, the jury did the right thing.

WhyteRaven74:Demonrats: The similarities are that neither the rape victim or Zimmerman did anything illegal.

Except for the whole stalking someone thing, it's illegal everywhere to just follow someone for the purposes of intimidation. Also for all we know, and there's no way he'd fess up to it, he might have had his gun drawn the whole time. In which case Martin would've been well within his rights to stand his ground.

Seriously, shut up.

If people really think like you, this country is doomed. Thug tried to kill someone, ended up dead. Happy ending. This whole case shows just how racist liberals and minorities in this country are. When they are the majority, what then? Slavery?

UNC_Samurai:This is about the prosecution being unable to put together a compelling case.

You don't go to jail just for being proven a racist asshole.

I think it's more the jury not understanding their instruction. 2nd degree murder was a stretch, but an armed person starting an altercation which ends in the death of another is classic manslaughter. That they didn't convict on that charge shows they either didn't understand the conditions for that verdict, or chose not to apply them.

(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-f or -firing-warning-shots/

shastacola:MagSeven: shastacola: Mid_mo_mad_man: Zimmerman was found not guilty. If one followed the court everyday this was an easy verdict to reach. It's clear Martin was not scared of Zimmerman but he was angry. Martin was a thug with a violent past. He was on marijuana and didn't have a clear rational head. Zimmerman had a legal right to follow Martin. He had the right to call 911. No law was broken till Martin jumped George. Once that happened he was in his rights to shot Martin. No tears should be shed for Martin.

Ever notice how many Zimmerman fans feel a need to paint Martin as a thug? What was any more "thuggish" about him than most teenagers? He got suspended from school for graffiti,truancy and pot. Please explain how this makes him a "violent thug".

Well, the actual violence he participated in, referring to your last sentence. But I am really starting to hate the word thug. It's starting to become the "N-word" when you cant say the actual phrase "N-word". How far down the rabbit hole will these hyphenated code words delve?

It is the new N word,it's become very obvious.

Jersey Shore-style guidos get called "thugs" all the time in New Jersey (actually, they probably get called "thugs" more than they get called "guidos", but I digress ...). It's a race neutral term.

shastacola:Mid_mo_mad_man: Zimmerman was found not guilty. If one followed the court everyday this was an easy verdict to reach. It's clear Martin was not scared of Zimmerman but he was angry. Martin was a thug with a violent past. He was on marijuana and didn't have a clear rational head. Zimmerman had a legal right to follow Martin. He had the right to call 911. No law was broken till Martin jumped George. Once that happened he was in his rights to shot Martin. No tears should be shed for Martin.

Ever notice how many Zimmerman fans feel a need to paint Martin as a thug? What was any more "thuggish" about him than most teenagers? He got suspended from school for graffiti,truancy and pot. Please explain how this makes him a "violent thug".

Somehow I do not consider frequent truancy , having an illegal substance on campus, vandalizing property with graffiti, being caught a with burglary tools and women's jewelry and assaulting a bus driver as normal/non-thug behavior.

Perhaps the problem is not Zimmerman but he low expectation of what is acceptable behavior set for Americas' youth by "progressives" and the rap/thug cultures in this country..

I agree with this statement, but maybe for a different reason. People don't understand the purpose of the courts, and the media isn't helping. It's possible that Zimmerman was wrong but not legally culpable. The purpose of the justice system isn't to right wrongs, it isn't a theater to play out a media-driven narrative. It is to determine whether a person's actions fit the legal definition of a specific crime. In our society, murder comes with intent and manslaughter comes with malice. Furthermore, it's the job of a jury to determine the facts of a case after hearing evidence.

If the jury, after hearing the evidence, determined that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had either malice or intent to kill then Zimmerman is not guilty of the crimes charged by the prosecution.

I believe the jury made the correct conclusion; it is not the role of the courts to fulfill the political theater fantasies of the media.

I wonder if Trayvon would have wanted these guys to half-heartedly block the pedestrian crossing for a few hours in his honor.

Trayvon Martin would have been leading the charge. Fact.

Fun Fact: Trayvon would have wanted a large protest. One that all his neighbors attended so he could burglarize their empty houses for drug money. That's what he did to to get suspended from school and sent to dads.

This. I haven't used the phrase "miscarriage of justice" in almost a decade, but this seems like a good time to dust it off. On the upside, Zimmerman's life is still ruined, so atleast he has that going for him.

/that kind of thing happens when you murder someone over the color of their skin//he'll get over away with it

The important thing is it went to trial. Previously it had the appearance of the police just accepting the self defence claim at face value without a proper investigation, and that would set a dangerous precedent.

Curious:Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

Let me put this in simple terms for you. For Zimmerman to have been the aggressor, he would have had to:

That's pretty much it. Following him around, calling the police, etc. do not make him the aggressor. Neither does pulling out his pistol and shooting the guy currently beating the crap out of him. There was no evidence of either of those events occurring. Regardless of the public opinion, the lack of evidence means there is just gobs of room for reasonable doubt, especially with the injuries that Zimmerman suffered. Reasonable doubt means no conviction if the jury is doing their job.

Curious:Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

That's because he killed a black kid. They're ALWAYS up to no good, you know.

Curious:Nutsac_Jim: the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

zimmerman wasn't reasonably cautious nor prudent or he would have been waiting in his vehicle. as he had agreed to do. (read the transcripts of the 911 call) also if he really thought martin was going to cause him grevious harm then he'd never been in a fight before. zimmerman, in violation of his neighborhood watch training, went looking for martin -- with a gun -- a gun he had been told to leave home while on "patrol".

i am disappointed that so many fail to see that zimmerman was the aggressor here. and it backfired on him. and yet so many excuse him.

He might have been, but nothing in the events that happened last night was illegal until the moment someone started the fight. Zimmerman said it was Martin. With a lack of proof to the contrary, the jury had no other choice but to absolve him. Martin's death, while tragic and avoidable, was not necessarily illegal.

Amos Quito:Hey, sillydragon - I really hope that this all fizzles - that the Sharptons, the Jacksons, the Spike Lees and the OBAMA's are TOTALLY disappointed that their little attempt at division through race-baiting failed like Zimmerman's prosecutors.

shower_in_my_socks:tollbooth_willy: Debate? It was many people pointing out that this is a bullshiat comparison and you repeatedly ignoring anything that didn't fit your narrative of "he guilty."

No, it was a bunch of people with reading comprehension problems that couldn't understand that the 911 tape contained what the husband SAID had just happened, not a recording of it as it actually happened. And as soon as I pointed out that the 911 recording was from after the shooting and therefore could not have possibly contained a recording of what had happened before the shooting, you and everyone else here STFU.

Nope. Try again. You left off after trying to claim that only the husband had 1) a restraining order against him, 2) a criminal record, and 3) a history of domestic abuse.

Elegy:Southern100: s2s2s2: Lionel Mandrake: therhinodep: If it makes some of you feel better, I just heard Zimmerman did not walk away from this totally unscathed. He has been demoted from neighborhood watch captain to neighborhood watch lieutenant.

Did they takes away his gun?

Is he going to have to stab his way to an acquittal now?

Gave him back his gun, kept his bullets.

The gun is garbage. Have you seen it? It's all bent up. The tube is bent up, the slide is unable to close because of it.. Probably because of the point blank shot. The gun will never be used again.

Meh, PF-9's cost something like 200 bucks. They're pretty disposable.

I know, just seems kinda pointless to give it back to him, although I guess he can frame it.

Your gun laws are officially to the point where even Texas is wondering what the hell you are doing. A woman fires a warning shot in self defence gets 20 years, while a prejudiced gunman hunts down an unarmed teenager is let off scott free.

As much money as you get from the NRA, I'm certain it pails in comparison to the money you get from tourism. Thanks to your ass-backwards attitude and your unwillingness to deal with it, people will no longer visit your state and your economy will suffer for it.

Signed,

Civilized society

I wear my pants on my head.

FTFY. Self-defence isn't a "gun law." You obviously know fark all about either case you mentioned. Also, potato.

Your gun laws are officially to the point where even Texas is wondering what the hell you are doing. A woman fires a warning shot in self defence gets 20 years, while a prejudiced gunman hunts down an unarmed teenager is let off scott free.

As much money as you get from the NRA, I'm certain it pails in comparison to the money you get from tourism. Thanks to your ass-backwards attitude and your unwillingness to deal with it, people will no longer visit your state and your economy will suffer for it.

well i'm disappointed. this is the worse possible outcome. but hey i didn't hear the jury's instructions. i have by now read them. i really don't see how he got off although there is IMO lots of wiggle room in the instructions.

IlGreven:The problem is, unlike other states, Florida has no "grading" of self-defense; in other words, it does not allow for the possibility that a self-defense was legitimate, but used excess force. Such a gradation would have made involuntary manslaughter an easy "get". But since Florida doesn't have that gradation, it's either all-or-nothing: He's either totally guilty of his crime, or he's totally not guilty of it. That's why the judge's allowance for the jury to consider manslaughter was so controversial, especially since the prosecution had used its whole case trying to prove murder, which is "malice aforethought". Even though manslaughter is not malice aforethought, the fact that self-defense is all-or-nothing pretty much means that even had the prosecution been trying for manslaughter from the start, if the self-defense was found legitimate, Zimmerman walks anyway. So pretty much the defensesstate'stwo options are to go for the full Murder 2, or not prosecute at all...which wasn't really an option, was it?

Mentat:Dimensio: Is an alternative available other than legally prohibiting individuals from using force if they are in fact threatened by a violent attacker?

What if they are threatened by that violent attacker because they provoked the confrontation by chasing him down? You shouldn't be able to escalate a situation and/or provoke a fight and then claim self-defense when the fight turns against you. It's nothing more than a grown-up version of the "He hit me first!" defense.

In most states, if police or prosecution are able to prove that the user of deadly force initiated the confrontation by "chasing down" the deceased, then self-defense laws are not applicable.

Mentat:Dimensio: Is an alternative available other than legally prohibiting individuals from using force if they are in fact threatened by a violent attacker?

What if they are threatened by that violent attacker because they provoked the confrontation by chasing him down? You shouldn't be able to escalate a situation and/or provoke a fight and then claim self-defense when the fight turns against you. It's nothing more than a grown-up version of the "He hit me first!" defense.

Got some sort of proof any of that happened? If so, the prosecutors could have used your help.

ARedthorn:When someone is acquitted, it can fall under one of two cases:Not Guilty, in which case the defendant is free from ANY further prosecution.Not Proven, in which case the case can be revisited later, given further evidence.

More often than not, such cases are appealed. I suspect this one will be, which means this isn't over yet.

What the HECK are you talking about? This case cannot be appealed. By anyone. It's over. The state cannot charge him in connection to this event EVER AGAIN, for the rest of his life.

Now, the Federal Government could possibly charge him with a HATE CRIME, but that's unlikely.

And what's all this "Not proven" crap? You just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in regards to the legal system in Florida, do you?

1) He was found Not Guilty, not "Not Proven."2) Zimmerman's attorneys raised an affirmative "Self-Defense," which means that the not guilty verdict renders Trayvon's death a justifiable homicide, and3) That means that Z is shielded from civil prosecution.

Third Day Mark:I'm now convinced half the country was watching a different trial than I was.

911 Operator told him "Ok, we don't need you to do that." And Zimmerman followed the kid anyways. Zimmerman had a loaded gun on him for neighborhood watch duty, who the f*ck does that. He saw a black kid running home in the rain with his hood on and assumed he had robbed a nearby 7-11, so he says "They always get away, f*cking punks."

And he's not guilty of premeditated murder? Lol yeah ok.

I'm convinced you didn't watch the trial. Or you understand nothing about law. Or you have no ability to reason.

Perhaps time for a clinical approach, and some extra, not-very-well-known info:

When someone is acquitted, it can fall under one of two cases:Not Guilty, in which case the defendant is free from ANY further prosecution.Not Proven, in which case the case can be revisited later, given further evidence.

News agencies rarely bother to distinguish.This was a "Not Proven" verdict... meaning that the jury thought that there was at least a possibility that the shooting was justified... which again needs definition.

Justified shootings mean that given the information the shooter had AT THAT MOMENT, that he reasonably believed it was necessary in order to prevent death, serious injury, rape or kidnapping (to himself or anyone else).

Meaning that if someone comes at you with an authentic looking rubber knife, and you can reasonably describe that you were in fear for your life, a shooting is justified even though the threat wasn't real.

In this particular case, the waters were pretty damn muddy. The video footage is very suggestive, and certainly, the whole situation could have been better handled from the beginning... but, if at the very moment of the shooting, the shooter felt appropriately threatened.... it might still be considered justified.

We all know that animals and people both are more dangerous when cornered. That means that the shooter here shouldn't have cornered him... it also means that once that HAD been done, it's reasonable to think the shooter was still afraid for his life.Stupidity and bias may have led the shooter to creating a bad situation, but from within said situation- the shooting MAY have been justified.

Which is exactly what the jury and court found in this case.

Since the burden of proof lies with the prosecution... the jury stated that the prosecution failed to appropriately prove intent for murder, or even for manslaughter.

More often than not, such cases are appealed. I suspect this one will be, which means this isn't over yet.

It also means the system is working (in this case) exactly as designed, and intended.

Our system is built on the principle of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." It's been often restated thus: Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed or killed.If you don't like that, I suspect you'll like Napoleonic law even less- burden of proof there lay with the defendant: "Guilty until proven innocent."

It certainly seems as if Zimmerman assumed Travon's guilt when he followed him. Don't make the same mistake with Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. They failed to do so, and so the jury found the case "not proven," but the jury left the case open both to reopening (given new evidence) and appeal.

(As a side note: Perhaps this would be more appropriately handled as a civil case for wrongful death- as Zimmerman seemingly created the situation that got Travon killed, even if the shooting itself is ruled justified... the death is still his responsibility, it just wasn't murder.)

Elegy:Third Day Mark: I'm now convinced half the country was watching a different trial than I was.

911 Operator told him "Ok, we don't need you to do that." >b?And Zimmerman followed the kid anyways. Zimmerman had a loaded gun on him for neighborhood watch duty, who the f*ck does that. He saw a black kid running home in the rain with his hood on and assumed he had robbed a nearby 7-11, so he says "They always get away, f*cking punks."

And he's not guilty of premeditated murder? Lol yeah ok.

You weren't watching the trial. You know how I know? That was addressed many, many times during the trial.

That was addressed, many many times, even in the closing arguments, as recently as friday. "Zimmerman saw a kid running in baggy clothes, he knew a store was nearby, so he thought he must have robbed it."

The state of florida needs to fire every prosecutor they have and start from scratch. We can't possibly f*ck up more than we have in our last two trials.

Mods just toasted my link, so I thought I would share my link again without the name-calling. Now we just need to figure out how to make some of you more 'simple' farkers actually read it.

Here it is:ZIMMERMAN HAS IMMUNITY. There is no civil suit. He is shielded from civil suits related to the death of Trayvon Martin.

Now now, before you spit-take your MountainDew & Scotch, and wake your mom shouting about "B-b-b-b-but OJ lost it all in a Wrongful death case!," allow me to calm your pimpled nerves. Let me save you the trouble of lots of sausage mashing on the keyboard:

The reason this is different from OJ is that OJ did not offer an affirmative defense of self-defense. Zimmerman did.

Elegy:Elegy: About 50 people in Union Square rallying and protesting, crowd is pretty low key.

About 150 people marching and chanting in Chicago, much more lively, protest is still growing.

Police just arrived on scene for the Chicago protest.

===

Friend in 'Frisco : "Protest is gathering at 24th and Mission to march up to 16th. Helicopters overhead. At one and the same time my heart is with the protestors and I am praying for safety in my neighborhood."

EvilRacistNaziFascist:I'll tell you something, and this goes for 99.9% of the people like me who you probably despise: no matter what your racial background might be, if you are trying to beat us to death we will resist you using any means necessary; and if we are armed and can save our lives by shooting your thug ass dead, we will do it. Consider yourselves forewarned.

And if you stalk me at night and then accost me, I'm going to get punchy. And if you respond by shooting me point-blank in the heart, and then get away with it, my friends and family will hunt you down like a dog. Consider yourself forewarned.

I have made French toast myself, which is quite an accomplishment considering I "don't cook."

Nonetheless, I prefer pancakes, but only if they're not gooey and fall-aparty.

I sure hope those jurors saw something I didn't see, because the guy who was just found not guilty was the guy with the gun, and as a rule of thumb, I never feel sorry for the guy with the gun. Remember, he's got the NRA on his side.

Dimensio:Mentat: Dimensio: "Feeling threatened" is not inherently justification for use of violence.

Why not? Isn't that the basis of Stand Your Ground laws?

No. "Stand your Ground" laws, which are not relevant to the current discussion, establish that an individual who has been placed in a reasonable fear -- which is defined as fear that is evident to any reasonable individual -- of imminent death, grievous bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual assault has no duty to retreat before using deadly force against an aggressor who is responsible for the existence of the reasonable fear. Merely "feeling threatened" is not sufficient, as such a broad scope would allow individuals to use deadly force even if their fear was not reasonable.

That's a nice tidy definition, but it gets very confusing in real life situations. The Florida law in particular has been criticized by a task force that felt it couldn't be rewritten and should be repealed. Regardless, in a real life situation like this, no one is going to stop and say "Is this a SYG scenario?", they're going to react and let the court sort it out later. In fact, that seems to happen a lot in Florida. After all, if the only other witness is dead, who's to say you didn't feel your life was threatened? And again, we don't know exactly what happened when Trayvon confronted Zimmerman the final time. If he saw the gun, or if god forbid Zimmerman drew the gun, Trayvon could easily have felt he was in mortal danger. We'll never know though because he's dead and Zimmerman sure as hell will never admit to something like that.

Mrtraveler01:nosferatublue: NAACP is asking folks to sign a petition asking the DOJ to file civil rights charges against Z.

What civil rights were violated?

Racial "profiling" could be an issue there. Or at least if GZ went after Trayvon because the kid was Black. That would be a potential hate crime, and as said, it's totally separate.

Nobody's disputing that GZ shot & killed Trayvon. If GZ did it because Trayvon was Black, then that's a whole different can of worms in the court. Murder as part of a hate crime... that would be pretty bad for GZ. Maybe death penalty bad, if things got sideways enough.

You run into the total absence of hard evidence, though. Lacking evidence didn't really matter to the murder trial, however, and you don't know how loud or difficult things will be in the coming days. If it gets quiet, then maybe the case won't fly. I don't think the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson will give up on it, though. There's a lot of hurt feelings out there, which is the best time to score some points (and donations).

What would Eric Holder have to lose from a hate crime trial? If he wants to feather his bed after Obama leaves office, is it better for him to have the trial or not have the trial?

A Federal hate crime trial might be the least bad of the bad outcomes, I think. Throw in a different jury, you don't know what we'll get. I think this gift keeps on giving, IMO. It can't be over yet.

Third Day Mark:Dimensio: Mentat: Dimensio: "Feeling threatened" is not inherently justification for use of violence.

Why not? Isn't that the basis of Stand Your Ground laws?

No. "Stand your Ground" laws, which are not relevant to the current discussion, establish that an individual who has been placed in a reasonable fear -- which is defined as fear that is evident to any reasonable individual -- of imminent death, grievous bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual assault has no duty to retreat before using deadly force against an aggressor who is responsible for the existence of the reasonable fear. Merely "feeling threatened" is not sufficient, as such a broad scope would allow individuals to use deadly force even if their fear was not reasonable.

Know how i know you have no clue wtf you're talking about?

Zimmermans entire defense was based upon Stand your Ground and the use of deadly force. There was a pre-trial hearing to determine whether SYG was going to be allowed as a defense.

No it wasn't.No there wasn't.GZ's defense was based on self defense.SYG is not a defense./what was that about not having a clue wtf someone is talking about?

ontariolightning:JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

She should have just shot him...shooting warning shots (which incidentally is counter to every gun safety class I've encountered) is a danger to others as stray bullets can and do kill innocent people.

God-is-a-Taco:One of the MSNBC online streams has been hijacked assumably by 4chan and is playing a bunch of random stuff.I'd guess /v but possibly /b.Ponies, anime, and video games basically.Good times, good times.

An anti-war and anti-racism activist group called an emergency march in San Francisco in protest of the "not guilty" verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

The ANDSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition and the Party for Socialism and Liberation called for the march after a jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The march began at 8 p.m. at 24th and Mission Streets. Our helicopter flew over the scene at 9 p.m. and found about 200 people marching down Mission Street, many carrying yellow signs that read things like "the whole system is racist" and "the people say guilty."

Or as they call it in San Francisco...Saturday night.

The anachronym is ANSWER. Typical sloppy media. They organized anti-war protests back during the Bush wars and apparently are still around. I would probably join them tonight for the hell of it if I was in San Francisco now

quiotu:Legitimate question here. Was there a point when Zimmerman actually prevented Martin from getting home? Because last time I heard information on the case, Martin turned and approached Zimmerman. That's not standing your ground... Martin could've gone all the way home and never stopped, and nothing would've happened.

Clearly they both did stupid things in the altercation, but your 'stand his ground' comment is bullshiat. Just sayin.

It's not standing his ground, but that doesn't matter. SYG only states that you don't have a duty to retreat in certain situations. If we follow this story out, Martin did retreat, and when he couldn't shake Zimmerman, he turned around: SYG woulldn't apply in such a situation, but ordinary self-defense would.

However, even if this occurred, signs point to a de-escalation on Zimmerman's part. Either he thought better of following Martin and returned to his car before things even began, and then Martin followed him, or a fight started but then Zimmerman ran back to the car, and Martin pursued. Either way ends that hostile encounter, and then Martin started the next one. That's where his self-defense ends and Zimmerman's begins, even if Zimmerman started a previous fight, because if there was a previous fight, it was over by then.

One of the MSNBC online streams has been hijacked assumably by 4chan and is playing a bunch of random stuff.I'd guess /v but possibly /b.Ponies, anime, and video games basically.Good times, good times.

Mentat:Dimensio: "Feeling threatened" is not inherently justification for use of violence.

Why not? Isn't that the basis of Stand Your Ground laws?

No, it's not.There is no stand your ground law first off.Second, what people think the stand your ground law is, is merely a part of the law that says if you're in a place you have a right to be, you do not have to retreat from force brought against you and instead can meet it with force of your own.That's all.

Cataholic:PsiChick: Cataholic: PsiChick: Pichu0102: Anyone who celebrates this should be shunned.Anyone who threatens him should be prosecuted.Anyone who thinks this means "open season on whatever minority I don't like" should be prosecuted.Violent rioters should be prosecuted.

Furthermore, everyone should be depressed. A kid is dead, his family is scarred, and a man's life was thrown into chaos and will likely be haunted by this for the rest of his life.

No one wins no matter what happens. My main concern was that people would celebrate this trial's conclusion, despite what a horrible thing that is to celebrate, and I was proven right.

Uh...he brought that one on himself...

/If you're Random Dumbfark, sure, you might not know that following a teen boy in the middle of the night is a stupid idea. If you're 'Captain of the Neighborhood Watch' with a 911 dispatcher telling you to stay the fark put...you have no goddamn excuse for the consequences, especially since you are the adult in the situation.

I know. He should have just laid back and taken the beating he deserved. What did he think was gonna happen wearin that skirt?

You want to know the difference between Zimmerman and a rape victim? Zimmerman chose to get out of his car and actively pursue Trayvon while armed*. Rape victims don't usually chase rapists around with guns.

/*And, as you would know if you knew the first damn thing about gun safety, while you are carrying a loaded weapon you DO NOT TAKE ACTION THAT MIGHT PROVOKE A FIGHT.//Godfarkingdamn, how do people miss the most basic gun-safety rules?

Getting your face bashed in is NOT a reasonably foreseeable consequence of getting out of a car to find out where someone acting suspiciously ran to, any more than getting raped is a reasonably foreseeable consequence to wearing a skimpy skirt to a party. NOBODY should have to fear someone's criminal act and have it considered criminally negligent in failing to do so. Someone under the mistaken belief tha ...

You see, that's the crux of the problem here.

I am probably far more vested and affected by cases like this than anybody else in the discussion. Well, was. But the basic argument basically boils down to two schools of thought. Fight Vs Flight. The majority of society is perfectly find with Fight, so long as Flight was the FIRST option. That's my method of operation, if I think there's even a chance of a fight, I get the everliving fark away from it. The best victories are the battles that never have to be fought in the first place. Then again, I'm a nerd who got bullied a lot and learned survival of the fittest in a rather twisted way, but I still hold even with all the pain I'd love to inflict upon the bigger folks that remind me of the bullies from my youth that FLIGHT is the best first choice, despite the fact that the tables are kind of turned now and I do in some way still have an axe to grind. I'd rather avoid the fight.

Zimmerman pursued. That means he was looking for a fight. There is absolutely no way to get around that. He went looking for trouble, period. His aspirations as a wannabe cop and general do-gooder not withstanding, he went looking for trouble. Big no no. If it was his job then sure I'd give him a pass. But Neighborhood Watch is about observation, not active pursuit. He puffed his chest, he acted like a bully. That to me is absolutely the behavior of someone looking to go out and hurt someone.

That's where I'm coming from, I've been the poor little bastard that everybody picked on until I got devious and started giving people incentives to leave me the fark alone if they had no intention of being friendly. On top of the other rather unforgiveable shiat I did for lawyers. I'm THAT guy that has to be concerned about shiat like this, and quite frankly, this is a very scary precedent to set. I'm gun rights to the bone, self defense to the bone, whole nine yards, it took endorsing Romney to get me to tear up my NRA card. Even I am concerned about this, and scared about the precedent. That you don't recognize that is troubling.

skullkrusher:NorCalLos: skullkrusher: NorCalLos: I don't mean to incite a riot here, but if I think rioting right now is a pretty rational thing to do.

destroying property in your neighborhood because a latino dude was acquitted of murdering a black kid? That doesn't sound really rational

From another perspective:

Having it declared justice to follow around a young man who has done nothing wrong with a gun until he "stands his ground," then shooting him because he's winning the fight you baited him into basically means you and your offspring do not legally have the right to exist in public.

actually, that was never "declared justice". Nothing says that Zimmerman was right in his actions. All that has been said is that he is not guilty of murder. There is no justification for destroying people's property because you don't like an outcome of a court case. It is not rational. It is not even reasonable. It's farking stupid.

To me, the final legal outcome of a case that has gone through criminal justice system is what that system has declared justice. You can argue semantics if you like, but the fact of the matter is that Trayvon and his family have exercised every right they have to justice through the legal system. Their son is dead because he was walking down the street and stood up for himself, because another man who appointed himself neighborhood tattletale decided he looked suspicious, provoked a confrontation, may have been losing that confrontation, and decided lethal force was his only way out. To me, he is morally guilty. A criminal justice system that does to find him guilty of anything is broken. While breaking shiat in your own neighborhood is not rational in and of itself, it's a small price to pay if it furthers the cause of an entire people getting due respect from their own justice system.

Mentat:But you know what? Zimmerman is a grown ass man. He should have known better than to put himself in that situation. The law is the law but common sense will save your ass far more often than the law will.

Kevin72:Can you understand that he was scared crazy by the guy that kept following him? He was just 17. A teenager. Because he was black people thing of him as a big adult, not the way people think of white minors. A teenager's brain is still growing. While scared by the guy that kept chasing him, any brain goes into fight or flight, and he TRIED FLIGHT. But the teen brain will take more crazy risks because it is not fully developed.

These seem to be the toughest things to get through to people. Too much bloodlust and misguided schadenfreude.

skullkrusher:NorCalLos: I don't mean to incite a riot here, but if I think rioting right now is a pretty rational thing to do.

destroying property in your neighborhood because a latino dude was acquitted of murdering a black kid? That doesn't sound really rational

Did you ever actually look into the reasons expressed by the rioters for the L.A. riots after the R. King verdict? Because you sound pretty far removed from being able to comprehend how and why all that went down. Maybe you should think about why people in a depressed and distressed neighborhood would act out in such a way when confronted on a macro scale with a symbol of the cultural oppression they feel (rightly or wrongly) exist on a microscale in their own places of living and existing.

I wasn't there when it happened and I'm guessing none of you were there either. I wasn't in the courtroom throughout the trial and I'm guessing none of you were either. I have to trust that the jury who had more facts than were reported in the media, made the correct decision.

That being said, I'm somewhat surprised at the not guilty for manslaughter (based on what I read about the case, I didn't think second-degree murder would fly). Then again, after reading about the prosecutorial misconduct from earlier today...I shouldn't be surprised that the prosecution's case was weak (why withhold evidence from the defense if their case was strong?). Personally, I wasn't rooting for either side...because really...nobody won with this verdict as Martin is still dead and Zimmerman will have to live with it (as well as look over his shoulder for the rest of his life).

WhyteRaven74:Gyrfalcon: That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

The problem is, that it totally dismisses whether or not Martin felt he was in danger to start with.

Because it doesn't matter. He had no legal right to attack Zim unless Zim had physically attacked him first. That's the way the law works. Zim broke no laws by just following, and that alone is not legal justification for force without a direct threat and provable escalation of force. shiat stains in your drawers are not evidence.

These past two weeks, during the trial, I have seen less DERP during the hearing than I have ever seen in the last 10 years or so going back to the guy that got put in jail for clogging the toilet on the Canadian boarder story. Anyhow, good night and I shall argue again and laugh at your headlines at another time.

/lots of derp though from the TM supporters that think that getting out of your car is an illegal act that is also agressive

PsiChick:Cataholic: PsiChick: Pichu0102: Anyone who celebrates this should be shunned.Anyone who threatens him should be prosecuted.Anyone who thinks this means "open season on whatever minority I don't like" should be prosecuted.Violent rioters should be prosecuted.

Furthermore, everyone should be depressed. A kid is dead, his family is scarred, and a man's life was thrown into chaos and will likely be haunted by this for the rest of his life.

No one wins no matter what happens. My main concern was that people would celebrate this trial's conclusion, despite what a horrible thing that is to celebrate, and I was proven right.

Uh...he brought that one on himself...

/If you're Random Dumbfark, sure, you might not know that following a teen boy in the middle of the night is a stupid idea. If you're 'Captain of the Neighborhood Watch' with a 911 dispatcher telling you to stay the fark put...you have no goddamn excuse for the consequences, especially since you are the adult in the situation.

I know. He should have just laid back and taken the beating he deserved. What did he think was gonna happen wearin that skirt?

You want to know the difference between Zimmerman and a rape victim? Zimmerman chose to get out of his car and actively pursue Trayvon while armed*. Rape victims don't usually chase rapists around with guns.

/*And, as you would know if you knew the first damn thing about gun safety, while you are carrying a loaded weapon you DO NOT TAKE ACTION THAT MIGHT PROVOKE A FIGHT.//Godfarkingdamn, how do people miss the most basic gun-safety rules?

Getting your face bashed in is NOT a reasonably foreseeable consequence of getting out of a car to find out where someone acting suspiciously ran to, any more than getting raped is a reasonably foreseeable consequence to wearing a skimpy skirt to a party. NOBODY should have to fear someone's criminal act and have it considered criminally negligent in failing to do so. Someone under the mistaken belief that you are not where you are supposed to be does not pose a reasonable threat to your life and you have no right to bash their head in until they commit some overt act that leads you to believe they are going to harm you. Even starting a simple scuffle with someone doesn't mean you forfeit your right to defend yourself if the other party wishes to turn it into a life or death struggle. The fact that many people fail to acknowledge these simple truths leads me to believe they have an ulterior motive and are merely using this case to try and restrict the rights of people to use firearms to lawfully defend themselves. If you want to be on the side of the poor oppressed criminal who society forces into a life of violence and theft, be my guest. Just be up front about that in voicing your opinion.

An anti-war and anti-racism activist group called an emergency march in San Francisco in protest of the "not guilty" verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

The ANDSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition and the Party for Socialism and Liberation called for the march after a jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The march began at 8 p.m. at 24th and Mission Streets. Our helicopter flew over the scene at 9 p.m. and found about 200 people marching down Mission Street, many carrying yellow signs that read things like "the whole system is racist" and "the people say guilty."

iq_in_binary:In short, I am (or was, now that I'm not on the job anymore and relocated to a city where I didn't have a bunch of people rather pissed at me) the epitome of the reason to be paranoid and walk around armed, and even I find some very big and glaring issues with this ruling. Whether or not you chose to address them is up to you. But as someone who had big reason to be concerned over this who is quite invested in legal self defense, quit it with your pretentious shiat.

Well, it wasn't a "ruling" it was a "verdict"; but either way, as in any court of law, the decision hinges on the way the argument was framed. The issue, as I mentioned above, hinged here on when the incident started. If it began when Zimmerman got out of his car, then a case could have been made for following, menacing, the whole thing as you said; but it did not, at least not for the purposes of the jury's verdict. The only thing they were deciding was whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. Anything that led up to that is pretty much irrelevant except to excluding 2d degree murder (malice). Once it was established Zimmerman had no specific intent to kill Trayvon Martin, then whether he was following or menacing or whatever would make no difference.

That Zimmerman could have avoided the fight by staying back (or better still, staying in his car) does not matter to a verdict of self-defense; what matter is, at the moment of decision, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? And clearly, the jury agreed that he did.

Handy to know that in Florida you can murder anyone you like just by making sure they get a few licks in on you before you pull your gun and shoot them.

The Prosecution should have gone for Assault with a Deadly Weapon in addition to Murder in this case. That would have brought in a section of Florida law that makes it clear that you can't claim self defense if you initiate a confrontation while armed. So then if the jury felt he was guilty of the assault charge they would also have to get him for murder as well.

Oh well, he will be farked in the civil case and his life is ruined now anyway. Still a HELL of a lot better off than Trayvon Martin, but at least he won't get a pass to an easy life.

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde:How do you know that Zimmerman didn't start it by confronting that kid, the kid was scared because the creepy cracker was following him and defended himself and when Zimmerman started to get his ass kicked he killed him? That's just as plausible. Only those two know and one of them is dead so...Seems to me that they have just sent a msg that if you want to kill someone, just start some shiat, start to get your ass kicked and then you can kill them now. Not saying that is what Zimmerman did, just saying looks like you could get away with doing that now.

Because they examined the body for injuries. Trayvon had knuckle injuries and a gunshot wound. No other injuries. He wasn't punched or scratched. Zimmerman had injuries to his nose and the back of his head. He didn't have anything but injuries consistent with being beaten by Trayvon's fist and concrete sidewalk. It is very clear that the fight started off very one-sided and ended abruptly with the gunshot. Zimmerman didn't land a single blow. Kind of hard to start a fight without the injuries associate with an aggressor.

jmr61:Weaver95: if florida burns to the ground before monday morning...would anyone actually care?

Nope. So long as Key West wasn't involved.

It's not a popular opinion on Fark, but I'm a big Disney fan. I love doing the drinking around the world, especially the scotch flight and the hidden sake bar. Tequilla flights in Epcot are also a bad plan. And it has Muppets 4D.

odinsposse:So I love pancakes. From my mom's side I was passed down recipes for Swedish pancakes and lefse. My dad is an expert at traditional pancakes and has done some good crepes as well. I haven't done any of it. However I've been thinking of investing in pancake griddle like this one and really getting into it. Anyone use one like it? Don't tell me about cast iron. I've bought and thrown out two cast iron skillets because I can never get them seasoned right and they rust like crazy.

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT???

Seriously, cast iron isn't for everyone - I use mine damn near daily but the SO can't stand it. But for good metal's sake, put up a Craigslist post or throw it to a thrift store!

My former roommate found a rusted to hell and back cast iron skillet near the creek on the edge of our property. I'm *just* about done sanding it, because a) it's a goddamn shame to let it go to waste and b) even counting the labor of love as billable hours, it's still cheaper than buying an equivalent one. This one's thick as heck and even with the rust biting away at that a bit, it will last a lifetime and the some with a bit of love.

Hell, the one I have now my dad found in my grandma's things and it's decades old if it's a day. And before he found it I asked him to keep an eye out for me at the regular auctions / estate auctions he went to on a regular clip (Lionel collector). Over dozens of sales, the only cast iron he ever found were two tiny 4" skillets (for a single egg and mini-cornbread predivided into triangles apparently). People just *don't* give that sh-t up, even when literally down to the wrapping paper left behind when the person of the house died is included in a large lot at the auction.

Anyway. Don't get it wet - or if you do, clean it off and heat it up -, don't use soap (salt + paper towel or scrubbing pad + water + heat), and rust should never ever be an issue.

As far as your crepes go, decent electronic non-stick griddle is how my mom always made her Polish crepes when I was growing up. Worked like a charm.

Millennium:Aaaaaand here's the link I was looking for. No plan to avoid double-jeopardy, or, indeed, any plan at all. Just the simple, standard cry of "Do more!"

There would be no double jeopardy issue, since the federal charge is completely different from the state charge. Lots of people have been tried for the same offense at the state and federal level in the past. It's how the Feds got a lot of various racists in the 60s when the states either wouldn't get them or they were obviously getting away with stuff.

skullkrusher:Wretched: odinsposse: So I love pancakes. From my mom's side I was passed down recipes for Swedish pancakes and lefse. My dad is an expert at traditional pancakes and has done some good crepes as well. I haven't done any of it. However I've been thinking of investing in pancake griddle like this one and really getting into it. Anyone use one like it? Don't tell me about cast iron. I've bought and thrown out two cast iron skillets because I can never get them seasoned right and they rust like crazy.

Two words for you: Le Creuset

we have a Le Creuset crockpot and while they are mad expensive, the thing really is pretty awesome and worth the price considering you'll have it forever

I got knock off Martha Stewart enameled cast iron skillet for a fraction of the price and it was great until the enamel flaked off years later. Flaxseed oil is excellent for seasoning if someone wants to give it a try. Heat the pot and oil it up then bake it on. Don't put it on too thick and it won't just become sticky. Put a few coats on if you're nervous about it coming off. Don't wash with soap, ever, or cook acidic foods for a little while and rinse quickly when you do.

skinink:Oh well. On to the civil suit to sue him for what little he has. I hope at least his gun permit was yanked.

They can't pull his permit, because legally, he committed no crime. That's what self-defense asserts: it admits to the act (homicide in this case), but argues that it was not a crime. The jury agreed, and so the State has no reason to pull his permit. Sorry; one more scary gun on the street.

As for the civil suit, Florida has a statute forbidding that in self-defense cases.